County clerk says office faces FY25 shortfall; committee members criticize lack of formal budget and litigation costs
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The county clerk told the Finance Committee the office cannot finish FY25 on the funds appropriated and projected larger unfunded needs for 2026; multiple board members criticized the clerk for failing to submit a formal budget, alleged improper spending and cited ongoing litigation that has cost the county at least $161,500.
County Clerk Kaczmarek and her deputy told the Finance Committee that the clerk—s office lacks sufficient appropriated funds to complete fiscal year 2025 and that the office will be unable to fund key election and operational costs under the chair—s proposed 2026 budget.
Deputy clerk presentation: The clerk's deputy said the FY25 appropriated amount was approximately $250,000–$300,000 short of the minimal funds needed to perform the office—s basic duties and that the clerk—s projected FY26 expenses include line items that remain unfunded. The deputy identified about $1,000,000–$1,100,000 of toner, battery and postage meter purchases that could be front‑loaded into FY25 to reduce FY26 pressure; doing so would reduce a cited FY26 shortfall from roughly $3,500,000 to about $2,400,000, the deputy said.
Board reaction: Multiple board members expressed frustration and skepticism. Members said the clerk had repeatedly declined to present a formal budget in the format required by county finance staff, had not bid certain purchases (toner), and that the clerk—s office had previously issued raises or allocations the board viewed as unvetted. Several members noted the county has already incurred legal costs tied to litigation with the clerk—s office (cited at roughly $161,500 and described as growing) and said they would not approve additional appropriations without standard budgetary documentation and oversight.
Next steps and staff direction: The deputy clerk requested the committee—s permission to work with finance staff to craft supplemental FY25 appropriation resolutions and to present proposed amounts and purposes at the next board meeting in two weeks. Finance staff said they would work with the clerk to prepare specific numbers for committee consideration.
Why it matters: The county board must provide "reasonable and necessary expenses" for the clerk to perform statutory duties, and election administration is resource‑intensive. The committee must balance those obligations against fiscal oversight responsibilities and concerns about prior spending practices and ongoing litigation costs.
What was not decided: The committee did not approve supplemental appropriations at the Oct. 28 meeting; finance staff and the clerk will prepare proposed resolutions for future consideration.